Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev

Roadmap for a communication maturity index fororganizations—Theorizing, analyzing and developingcommunication value

Catrin Johanssona, Christina Grandiena,⁎, Kicki Strandhb

aDepartment of Media and Communication, Mid Sweden University, Holmgatan 10, SE-851 70 Sundsvall, Swedenb Communication Department, Mid Sweden University, Holmgatan 10, SE-851 70 Sundsvall, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Communication maturityCCO theoryCommunication indexCommunication valueStakeholder perceptionsOrganizational development

A B S T R A C T

This study employed a constitutive (CCO) communication approach to advance the dynamicconcept of communication maturity for the purpose of theorizing, analyzing, and developingcommunication value on an organizational level. A literature review resulted in six theoreticalareas related to communication maturity: understanding, function, organization, prerequisites,competence and practices including assessments of communication. These were analyzed in aqualitative comparative case study including 85 key stakeholders from eleven organizations.Findings illustrated the relevance of the theoretical areas to stakeholders’ perceptions of theirrespective organizations’ communication maturity. A first version of a Communication MaturityIndex including four levels of maturity; immature, emerging, established, and mature is pro-posed. Based on the qualitative analysis, organizations’ communication maturity levels variedfrom emerging to mature. Findings of this study are limited to participating organizations andinterviewed stakeholders. The CMI can be further developed in quantitative studies to investigatethe constitutive role of communication in organizations and to be used in practice to develophigher levels of communication maturity.

1. Introduction

Scholars across disciplines increasingly assert that communication is the means by which organizations are established, designedand sustained and claim that organizations are dynamic collectives, coproduced through members’ ongoing interactions (Cooren,Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011; Heide, Johansson, & Simonsson, 2012). This constitutive perspective of communication entails thatresearchers move the focus from studying how communication is organized and managed to how communication organizes andcreates value in a society characterized by a multiple communication arenas, rapid change and individual responsibility (Gregory &Halff, 2017; Van Ruler, 2018).

Key stakeholders in organizations differ in how they understand and acknowledge the value of communication and implementstrategic communication practices to accomplish organizational objectives and manage change. Earlier research focused on how topmanagement or communication practitioners perceive communication value (Brønn, 2014; Johansson & Ottestig, 2011). The per-ceived value of communication to an organization is highly dependent on the knowledge, beliefs, and expectations of CEOs and othertop managers which may or may not give influence and ability to act to communication practitioners (Reber & Berger, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.05.012Received 31 August 2018; Received in revised form 5 April 2019; Accepted 13 May 2019

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: catrin.johansson@miun.se (C. Johansson), christina.grandien@miun.se (C. Grandien), kicki.strandh@miun.se (K. Strandh).

Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

Available online 14 June 20190363-8111/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

T

Moreover, even if communication is perceived as important, there is a gap between such perceptions and the slow advancement ofprofessional communication departments and their implementation on the management level. In a study of CEOs and board mem-bers’ perceptions and expectations concerning the contribution of communication to organizational success, researchers concludedthat “Advanced visions of strategic communication developed in academia and practice have not yet arrived in many boardrooms”(Zerfass & Sherzada, 2015).

In the present article, we introduce the theoretical concept of communication maturity, defined as the development level of or-ganizational leaders’, communication professionals’ and members’ common perceptions and practices of communication in organi-zations, and take the first steps towards developing a communication maturity index (CMI) intended to analyze, and develop the valueascribed to communication in organizations. A maturity index indicates degree of progress made by an organization with respect tothe issue that the index is designed to address (Baumgartner, & Ebner, 2010; Kwak & Ibbs, 2000; Succar, 2009).

A literature study identified theoretical areas of relevance for communication maturity, and these areas were used to design aqualitative study in eleven organizations to form dimensions of the proposed communication maturity index. Our study extends theperspective beyond top management by including both a sample of key communication stakeholders and communication profes-sionals, based on the theoretical assumption of the constitutive (CCO) approach that communication value is co-created by allorganizational members and is highly dependent on individual experiences and perspectives. Findings of the understandings, ex-periences, and expectations of these stakeholders hence contribute more comprehensive knowledge about the significance ascribed tocommunication in organizations. Future studies are suggested to embrace a broader selection of organizational members, includingemployees.

This article is to be considered a roadmap towards the development of a communication maturity index that attempts to capturedegrees of progress of communication maturity. The CMI will be valuable both for research and for practice; for example, it can beused to map developments in organizations over time as well as to benchmark progress in organizations that want to develop theircommunication maturity on an organizational level.

1.1. The value of communication for organizations

Within research, communication and its value for organizations has been studied from a number of perspectives. One perspectivefocuses on the development and legitimacy of communication practitioners and of the occupation. Professionalism of communicationpractitioners (Boynton, 2002; Pieczka & L’Étang, 2006), and the institutionalization of communication (Grandien & Johansson, 2012;Invernizzi & Romenti, 2009; Swerling & Sen, 2009) are two examples of orientations within this perspective.

One prevailing argument in research is that occupational developments are highly dependent on the acceptance and under-standing of the value of communication within the organization and that there is an urgent need to find ways to show how com-munication contributes to overall organizational goals in order to strengthen occupational standing. In this vein, the excellencetheory looks for characteristics of effective public relations and attempts to explain the value of PR to both organizations and societyas well as how PR should be practiced to increase the value to both (Grunig, 1992).

Results from the European Communication Monitor, a survey targeting communication professionals, illustrate that the mainchallenge for the occupation in the coming years is to connect the value of communication to business results and organizationalgoals (Zerfass, Tench, Verčič, Verhoeven, & Moreno, 2014). The often-advocated argument about the necessity of measuring com-munication in order to demonstrate communication effects and value also shows that communication practitioners do not measureand evaluate communication in a trustworthy and reliable way and that the interaction between academia and the communicationindustry is very limited (Macnamara, 2014). Falkheimer, Heide, and Simonsson (2016), however, argue that the urge for commu-nication practitioners to describe the value of communication in economical or managerial terms can be harmful to the developmentof communication professionalism, since the measurement of communication then tends to be reduced to measuring informationdistribution and media content.

1.2. Communicative constitution of organizations, CCO

Our study is grounded in the assumption that communication is a prerequisite to create, maintain, and change organizations(Heide et al., 2012). In organizational communication research, scholars have a long tradition of studying and demonstrating howcommunication is socially constructed and contributes to organizing (Cooren et al., 2011; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2015; Putnam &Nicotera, 2009; Putnam & Pacanowsky, 1983). The constitutive role of communication is demonstrated by McPhee and Zaug (2000)who highlight four “flows” of communication that together have a formative function and produce an organization: membershipnegotiation, reflexive self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning. In 2009, Putnam and Nicotera coined theterm CCO (Communicative Constitution of Organization) based on this research tradition, which assumes that communication is themeans by which human beings coordinate actions, create relationships, and maintain organizations, and that organizations areconstituted in and through human communication. CCO is a framework for examining the role of communication in organizations,based on the assumption that an organization cannot exist apart from communication processes; they are inextricably linked (Putnam& Nicotera, 2009; Schoeneborn et al., 2014). Communicative constitution embodies the material (elements), formal (framing orforming), and the efficient causes (principles or rules for governing) that bring organizations into existence.

CCO scholarship is becoming established and increasingly recognized in communication studies and related fields such asmanagement and organization studies (Boivin, Brummans, & Barker, 2017). Researchers from corporate communications, strategiccommunication, and public relations advocate CCO theory to a) study how communication organizes instead of studying the

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

2

controlled handling of communication (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011); b) encompass the facilitation and support of employeecommunications (Heide & Simonsson, 2011); and c) establishing a meta-competence in communication in organizations by coachingand advising effective communication that create social and economic value (Gregory & Halff, 2017).

According to Cooren et al. (2011) CCO theory can contribute to a better understanding of the role of communication to orga-nizations and provide a platform for organizational analyses. We believe that by grounding our study in this perspective, CCO theorycan also enrich research in communication that seeks to demonstrate the value of communication to organizations.

1.3. Indexing communication maturity of organizations

By employing a CCO perspective, we depart from the view that communication is residing in communication departments andmanaged by communication professionals. Rather, communication is enacted and co-created by all organizational members, althoughsome have more power than others in realizing their aims and goals. Thus, in order to move forward from the theoretical assumptionsand create a way to theorize, analyze and develop communication value, we introduce the theoretical concept of communicationmaturity. Maturity signifies “a very advanced or developed form or state” (Cambridge Dictionary), and to mature means “to becomefully developed, to progress” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Accordingly, we define communication maturity as the development levelof organizational leaders’, communication professionals’ and members’ perceptions and practices of communication in organizations.

The use of indexes to measure maturity levels is common within a range of different areas, such as quality management (Kwak &Ibbs, 2000), information technology (Succar, 2009) and sustainability (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010). Maturity models are used as anevaluative and comparative basis for improvement, and to derive an informed approach for increasing the capability of a specific areawithin an organization (De Bruin, Freeze, Kaulkarni, & Rosemann, 2005).

The use of indexes or quantitative scales to measure and evaluate communication is not a novel phenomenon. For example,Bruning and Ledingham (1999) developed and tested a scale to measure organization-public relationships. Another example of a far-reaching attempt to measure the value of communication to organizations is Huang’s (2012) model that includes measures of mediapublicity, organization–public relationship (OPR), organizational reputation, cost reduction, and revenue generation. This argumentis in line with the tradition of auditing communication within organizations since the 1970s (Hargie & Tourish, 2009). Ruck andWelch (2012) claim that organizations need to evaluate and improve communication and that assessment instruments enable or-ganizations to monitor communication effectiveness and that assessment instruments need to reflect advances in practice.

This study aims to extend this line of research by providing a roadmap towards a communication maturity index for organizationsthat contribute to theorizing, analyses and development of communication value. By focusing on the perceptions of a selection of keystakeholders of communication in eleven organizations, the study will investigate theoretical areas and maturity levels relevant fordeveloping a communication maturity index (CMI).

1.4. Research questions

RQ1: What theoretical areas or concepts are relevant to analyzing and evaluating organizational communication maturity?RQ2: How do key stakeholders perceive the value of communication in their organizations?RQ 3: What levels of communication maturity are exposed through key stakeholders’ perceptions?

2. Methodology: First phases of index development – scope, design, populate and test

The development of the communication maturity index largely followed the stages proposed by De Bruin et al. (2005) for de-veloping maturity models in different domains: scope, design, populate, test, deploy and maintain. First, the scope of the model wasestablished through literature reviews of possible theoretical areas to include, as well as dialogue with stakeholders from the industry.These activities confirmed that there is a need for a CMI that serves the purposes of theoretically analyzing and practically assistingorganizations in assessing and improving the value attributed to communication in organizations. Second, a design was suggested and“named by short labels intended to give a clear indication of the intent of the stage” (De Bruin et al., 2005, p. 5). Following this modelof developing a maturity index, four levels of communication maturity were proposed to capture a dynamic process: immature,emerging, established, and mature. Third, the CMI was populated, i.e. the theoretical areas were elaborated to establish what toinclude in the maturity assessment. Fourth, the CMI was further explored and tested by a qualitative comparative case study in elevenorganizations for relevance and the results were discussed in a workshop where the researchers and representatives from partici-pating organizations discussed the scope, labels, maturity levels, and the practical application of the CMI.

2.1. Literature review

In order to identify important theoretical areas relevant to include in a communication maturity index, we performed a literaturereview. The review entailed literature searches within the field of communication and adjacent areas. We organized the literatureinto six theoretical themes to achieve a comprehensive overview of relevant areas (see Appendix 1).

2.2. Comparative case study in eleven organizations

A comparative case study design in eleven organizations was employed to investigate key stakeholders’ perceptions of

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

3

communication and to identify and validate theoretical areas or concepts as well as maturity levels relevant to include in a com-munication maturity index. A comparative case study, or multi-site study, collects and analyzes data from several cases (Merriam &Tisdell, 2015). This type of method entails analysis that examines themes across cases to identify common and different themes for allcases (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

For this study, we selected organizations with a large variation in size and type (see Appendix 2). The sample of organizationsconsisted of organizations of different sizes (from approximately 100 employees up to 100 000 employees) and sectors (governmentorganizations, business organizations, municipality and county organizations, and higher education). Organizations in the sampleoperate locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.

2.2.1. Data: documents and interviewsThe data consisted of collected documents related to communication, such as the mission statement for the communication

department. All participating organizations provided their annual report and communication policy. They also provided writtenanswers to background questions, such as the number of employed communications practitioners (and their gender), how muchformal education they have in communication, what is the budget for communications, if the communication executive is part of thesenior management team of the organization or not, and how the communication department is organized.

In each organization, we interviewed the communication executive (or equivalent person responsible for communication), theCEO or director-general (or equivalent) and four to five key stakeholders on different levels in the organizations, for example HR-director, administrators, product specialists, managers, mainly from core operations. The interviews were conducted by telephoneand were recorded and transcribed. All respondents were asked the same questions in order to assess differences and similarities inhow communication practitioners, managing directors, and key stakeholders, understand the value of communication. A total of 85interviews were conducted. The interview questions were structured around the six theoretical areas identified by the literaturereview for the communication maturity index, but also included open questions, such as “When is communication most important toyour organization?” (see Appendix 1). The respondents were given the questions beforehand. The interviews took approximately30min.

2.2.2. Data analysisThe data was analyzed in four steps. In the first step of the analysis, data from each organization (documents, interview transcripts

and recordings) was analyzed. These first readings of the material resulted in summaries of the characteristics of each organization aswell as a first analysis of each organization in relation to the different theoretical areas. We did not find any new areas emerging fromthe data at this point. In the second step, we compared the analyses from the different organizations in order to find commonalitiesand differences across cases. In the third step, we undertook a closer reading of the material from each organization to analyze theconsistency of all six theoretical areas across all organizations and integrated the six theoretical dimensions into the communicationmaturity index. Fourth, we characterized each organization’s maturity level in all six dimensions of the index. This part of the processwas first conducted individually by the researchers in the project, and then all the characteristics of organizations, summaries,consistency of theoretical areas, and assessments of maturity levels were analyzed in the same way by another researcher, in order tocheck the consistency of interpretations of the qualitative material. There were a few maturity level assessments that differed amongresearchers, and they were discussed by all researchers to find common ground for the assessments. Finally, findings were sum-marized and each of the eleven organizations got a report on their communication maturity in the six areas of the CMI with sum-maries of the assessments illustrated with quotes from the interviews.

Following the reporting of the data analysis, we conducted an interactive workshop with participating organizations for thepurpose of discussing, validating, and adjusting the index. Representatives from all eleven organizations met to discuss the results andthe validity of the six theoretical dimensions and the four maturity levels. This workshop advanced the CMI on several points. Mostimportantly, one dimension, “communication resources” was expanded to include a broader scope, since it was perceived to be amuch wider dimension and should contain more attributes. Therefore, it was altered to “communication prerequisites,” incorporatingattributes such as time spent on communication for the employees, number of employees per manager, and the communicationclimate. Additionally, wordings were altered and the maturity levels were adjusted. The result of the workshop was the condensationof the six dimensions of the CMI.

3. Findings: six theoretical areas relevant to communication maturity

In the following section of the article, we present the six theoretical areas derived from the literature search (see Appendix 1)together with the empirical results from the interviews and document analysis. In each section, we integrate the findings from theanalysis of the eleven organizations.

3.1. Communication understanding

Communication has been conceptualized as constitutive for organizing (Putnam & Nicotera, 2009), as a prerequisite for orga-nizational success (Ruck & Welch, 2012), and as a strategic tool for executives to lead their organizations (Goodman, 1998). Ac-cording to the constitutive perspective, the mind-set of communication shapes organizational decision making on projects and re-sources, as well as influences the way organizations manage information (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011).

Most empirical studies, however, do not focus on executives’ and leaders’ understanding and perceptions of communication, but

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

4

rather on communication executives’ and communication practitioners’ perceptions of their role and function in organizations(Bowen, 2009; Dolphin & Fan, 2000; Johansson & Ottestig, 2011). In the past, communication practitioners defined their influence inorganizations in terms of shaping strategic decisions, having access to the senior management team, and being heard (Reber & Berger,2006). They perceived they were most influential in crisis situations and when preparing communication messages or plans. Whenthey felt they were perceived as “technicians” and when in interactions with senior executives, they reported being least influential.

Only recently have researchers begun to underscore the importance of how leaders perceive the value of communication to theorganization and argue that leaders’ understanding of communication is of critical importance for how it is practiced in organiza-tions. Brønn analyzed leaders’ perceptions of the importance and contribution of communication to organizational success and theabilities of communication executives to contribute to strategic decision making (Brønn, 2014). Zerfass, Schwalbach, Bentele, andSherzada (2014) compared German top executives’ and communication practitioners’ opinions on the most important objectives ofcorporate communication. They found that perspectives diverge, although both groups support a model that describes commu-nication practitioners as a facilitator between an organization and its publics. Another study investigated CEOs’ and executive boardmembers’ perceptions and expectations concerning the contribution of communication performance to organizational success, thecommunicative role of top executives, and the objectives and values of corporate communications (Zerfass & Sherzada, 2015).Findings illustrated that two-thirds of the top executives reported a high contribution of professional corporate communications tocorporate success and predicted a rising relevance within the next three years. Findings also showed that CEOs and board membersvalued more highly the contribution of personal communication to corporate success performed by top executives than they valuedthe contribution of professional communication by specialized departments or agencies. The majority of top executives supported atraditional understanding of communication as transmission of information from a sender to a receiver, and researchers noted this asbeing consistent with their educational background in business administration and the predominant conceptualization of commu-nication in this discipline (Zerfass & Sherzada, 2015).

Rarely are organizational members or lower level leaders and managers asked about the importance and value of communication.Welch (2012) investigated employees’ views of and preferences for mediated internal communication, defining internal commu-nication as “communication between strategic managers and internal stakeholders designed to promote commitment and a sense ofbelonging to the organization, to develop awareness of its changing environment, and understanding of its evolving aims” (p. 247).

The constitutive perspective of communication is advocated by Gregory and Halff (2017), who highlight that all members enactcommunication, and should be equipped, trained and encouraged to participate in conversations contributing to value creation.

3.2. Stakeholders’ communication understanding

Based on the literature above, we analyzed key stakeholders’ communication understanding. Principally, respondents perceivedcommunication as highly important and vital for the organization, although representatives of the different respondent groups (CEOsor managing directors, communication executives and key stakeholders at different organizational levels) expressed the value ofcommunication quite differently and from their own perspectives. For example, directors and managers of high level in the orga-nization expressed their understanding of the value of communication as a strategic management function:

I would say that [communication] is critical /…/ both the external and the internal communication are fundamental to the operations/…/ it is about making visible externally what we do and create trust for the authority, in that respect communication is very important,and internally it is about creating a good process, to use the competencies of all employees and be creative and develop together, because theinternal communication is important [Director General, organization C]

Representatives from core operations at lower levels in the organizations expressed the value of communication in terms of thework and responsibility of the communication department, and perceived communication as a support and service function:

The communication department has a tendency to choose to work with /…/ more sexy projects than to do quality checks on the templates,which is what we perceive that the communication department is responsible for (Key stakeholder, organization C)

It was clear from the interviews across organizations, that communication with external stakeholders, such as customers, wasmore prioritized than communication with internal stakeholders:

Customer needs, that is what guides us, not how we organize [communication] internally /…/ Customers have a need and we shall meetthat need (Key stakeholder, organization E)

In contrast to this, when asked when communication is most important to the organization, interviewed respondents said duringorganizational change, change communication is of paramount importance. Some respondents also mentioned during crises:

When something dramatic happened, a trauma of some kind; it could be a fire, an accident; communication is critical, you need to talk toeach other and you need information, then you suffer the most from a lack of communication. But that is a special case. Communication ingeneral, if you consider positive processes, communication is most important for the ability to perform, change and develop, and improve(Key stakeholder, organization G)

These are examples of quotes exposing a more constitutive view of communication, that communication is important to changethe organization or to manage crises.

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

5

3.3. Communication function

The label of “communication function” signifies both ways in which organizations work with communication across for examplesectors and cultural contexts, which is affected by for example organizational size, organizational members attitudes and back-grounds, and how the mission of communication departments and communication professionals’ ways of working with commu-nication are described. Research illustrates that the role of communication executives and practitioners varies between organizationsand could also be subjected to change within an organization (Grandien & Johansson, 2016; Johansson & Ottestig, 2011).

A CCO-perspective on communication would entail the idea that the social reality of an organization is achieved through in-teraction and conversations between people (Van Ruler, 2018). In line with this perspective communication professionals wouldenact a facilitating role (Gregory & Halff, 2017). This is more of a bottom-up perspective, in which all members contribute to theorganizing when participating in communication processes. In contrast, strategic communication is defined as the purposeful use ofcommunication by an organization to fulfill its mission (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007). Commu-nication has long been noted as a strategic management function, contributing to organizational excellence (Grunig, 1992). Thetheoretical framework of institutionalization has been employed in a number of studies to describe the integration of the commu-nication function in organizations as a renowned practice at the heart of organizational operation (Tench, Verhoeven, & Zerfass,2009). Empirical findings show that European communication practitioners are strategically oriented in the sense that they usestrategies and plans and evaluation and controlling tools in their organizations (Verhoeven, Zerfass, & Tench, 2011). The develop-ment of strategically oriented communication in organizations is, however, also locally adapted and translated to and preconditionedby the context of individual organizations (Grandien, 2016) even if there can be similarities between, for example, organizationalsectors when it comes to how organizations work with communication.

3.4. Stakeholders’ perceptions of communication function

The analyses of the cases showed that it is often unclear what communication activities the operations are expected to beresponsible for and need to conduct themselves, and what activities the communication professionals or communications departmentis responsible for:

I do not know how many communication practitioners there are. I know who is their manager, but I do not know what areas of re-sponsibility and … I do not really know what they do, if I may say so (Key stakeholder, organization B)

Moreover, key stakeholders were asking for more operational support than they received, and this applied to all types of orga-nizations.

Findings also illustrated that the communication departments and communication practitioners had very different missions in theeleven participating organizations: from a mere marketing function in some organizations, to solely an internal function in otherorganizations, to a “full service” function in a few organizations.

In addition, the missions of the communication departments were perceived by stakeholders as rather unclear, and stakeholdersdemonstrated different perceptions of these missions. There was also a difference in how upper-level management and re-presentatives of different parts of the operations perceived the communication departments’ mission.

In two organizations, communication professionals worked with leadership communication training, thus enacting a facilitatingfunction more in line with the CCO perspective.

3.5. Communication organization

In CCO theory, communication and organizing are inextricably linked. Organizational design forms communication practice andvice versa, and both are affected by managerial behavior. The role enactment of practitioners, decision-making behavior, and de-partment leadership style are interrelated and affect organizational structure (Werder & Holtzhausen, 2011). Furthermore, thestructural dimension of communication, including consistency and wholeness, “may stimulate the emergence of new types of(consolidated) communication departments, change the role and the influence of communication managers, or give rise to new cross-disciplinary communication functions” (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011, p. 404). This illustrates that organization and function ofcommunication are closely related.

The importance of the communication executive in the senior management team enabling the participation in strategic decision-making has long been advocated as a prerequisite for being able to enhance the strategic contribution of communication to orga-nizational goals. Empirical data from the U.S. showed almost one quarter of examined Financial Times Global 500 companies had acommunication executive on the executive board (Verhoeven, 2014). A comparison between business-to-business and business-to-consumer companies showed no differences, and economic indicators did not predict whether a company had a communicationexecutive on the board.

The dynamics of organizing the communication department were studied by Grandien and Johansson (2016) in a businessorganization and a local government organization. In both organizations, re-organizations (centralization/decentralization) of thecommunication departments took place because of top management decisions based on efficiency and strategic contribution of thecommunication departments. One conclusion from this study was that a centralized communication department with decentralizedcommunication professionals created the most value for organizational members as well as the most satisfaction for communicationprofessionals.

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

6

3.6. Stakeholders' perceptions of communication organization

The communication organization reflected stakeholders’ perceptions of the role and function of communication in the elevenorganizations. The most common way of organizing the communication department was to have a centralized communication de-partment and to have a communication executive in the top management team. Some of the studied organizations have both centraland local organizations of communication in combination, which was seen to favor the facilitating role of communication profes-sionals.

Findings show that stakeholders of organizational units that had physical proximity to the communication practitioners weremore satisfied with the communication department compared to stakeholders with communication practitioners located far away.Also, those who did not regularly work with or did not have access to a communications practitioner were less satisfied than thosewho did:

She [the communication practitioner] gets caught up in tactical issues and perhaps not so much strategic issues that you could hope for, butshe has not been here for so long, so that might be an explanation (Communication executive, organization A)

This business organization was one of the smallest in the sample, and had only one communication practitioner employed.Another finding is that in organizations or parts of organizations where communication practitioners were part of the manage-

ment team, key stakeholders from the operations perceived that the communication practitioners had a better understanding of thegoals and challenges and operations of the organizations, compared to organizations where communication practitioners were notpart of the management team:

I think we have great communication specialists, I would say /…/ the people in our communication team, they are part of what we callcross-functional operational teams. So, basically, they are part of the operational meetings that we have. (Key stakeholder, organization K)

This quote illustrates that communication professionals organized close to the operations can work more seamlessly with criticalissues for the operations.

3.7. Communication prerequisites

Communication prerequisites are resources, in e.g. terms of budgets, staff, but also situational conditions in different organiza-tions.1 Research about how communication creates value for organizations generally focuses on the role of the communicationdepartment and not typically on the organizational prerequisites for communication such as, for example, if co-workers have time setaside for communication, if their communicative responsibilities are understood, or if managers are communicative leaders(Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2014). However, research has established the benefits of good internal communication, such as jobsatisfaction, greater productivity, less absenteeism, reduced costs, improved quality of goods and services, and increased levels ofinnovation (Desmidt & George, 2016; Hargie & Tourish, 2009).

Concerning monetary resources, there is relatively little research on the finances and staffing of communication departments inorganizations. The excellence study (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) put forward that money is not a sufficient condition forexcellence in public relations because the value communication adds to the organization also depends on other things, such as, forexample, what the budget is spent on, and which people work with communication. The link between downsizing communicationdepartments and decreased value is also questioned since communicative responsibilities are consequently distributed to other or-ganizational functions or departments such as human relations or public affairs. The excellence study, however, also discusses howtime and budget often limit communicators to evaluating the effects of communication programs (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 2013).

3.8. Stakeholders' perceptions of communication prerequisites

Results showed stakeholders perceived that there are not enough resources and time for communication, although some stake-holders considered it possible to streamline more of the communications resources. Priorities are necessary in most organizations,according to the interviewees. Findings illustrated that when awareness of the value of communication is increased in the organi-zation, the expectations and needs also increase; as a result, communication departments and practitioners feel more pressure andexperience more difficulties in fulfilling the needs of the organization due to lack of resources.

As the quote below illustrates, resources are related to organization:

it became too centralized during some years here, but /…/ we have a good way of working with the network [of communication prac-titioners], we call it a glocal approach, where we have some global and some local, or a little global and much local [communicationpractitioners] I would argue, so it is always an interplay, naturally they must appeal to local people and work with the local communicationbut [communication] is guided by our global strategic ways of working, so it is a mix, this glocal approach (Communications executive,

1 We first termed this theoretical area “communication resources,” as the perceptions of communication value can also be reflected in the budgetsand staff assigned to communication in an organization. When these findings were discussed in the workshop with representatives from partici-pating organizations, this area was redefined as “communication prerequisites.” Participants stressed that in addition to budgets and number ofpeople working in communications, this area should also include prerequisites for communication for managers and employees, such as timedevoted to communication activities, time devoted to meetings, and the opportunity to read news and information on the intranet, etc.

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

7

organization K)

It turned out to be difficult for respondents within the key stakeholder group to answer questions about resources for commu-nication; they felt they didn’t have knowledge about budgets for communication or what resources their communication departmenthad. They also felt it was hard to assess how reasonable the resources were. This is interesting as it shows that the communicationbudgets and departments are unknown in the organization, despite the high value that stakeholders attached to communication in theorganizations.

Communication executives’ in some organizations reported they could adjust the budget according to need, and support theinternal resources with external communication resources:

We do not have a problem to argue that we need economic resources to implement important changes in the organization (Communicationexecutive, organization E)

Communication practitioners also said they had opportunities to purchase communication tools from consultants and to useresources for the development of communication skills and training. When it comes to prerequisites such as time, some organizationsdevoted more time to communication, and managers had smaller teams in order to be able to work systematically with commu-nicative leadership.

3.9. Communication competence

Research established that communication competence is critical for both leaders and employees (Barrett, 2006; Jarvenpaa &Leidner, 1999; Johansson et al., 2014). The educational and advising role of communication practitioners (Heide & Simonsson, 2011;(Welch, 2013) who also facilitate sense-making in organizations (Zerfass, Linke, & Rottger, 2014) is highlighted as well. The outcomeof communication activities is influenced by communicative practices that embody cultural competence and can be hampered bycommunication paradoxes and contradictions (Johansson & Stohl, 2012). Although a communication strategy may incorporateimportant components, enactment of the strategy can be impeded by contradictions and result in delegitimizing paradoxical com-munication due to lack of competence. As a consequence, there is a need to be aware of and competent in managing contradictionsand paradoxes (Stoltzfus, Stohl, & Seibold, 2011). The communication executive needs the competencies to enact the strategic role inthe organization (Yeo & Sriramesh, 2009). Only when the communication executive possesses strategic management knowledge andengages in managerial work with support from colleagues can the communication be value-generating, according to Yeo andSriramesh (2009). The facilitating and educational role of communication professionals is advocated by Gregory and Halff (2017)who articulate the notion of public relations becoming an embedded meta-competence in organizations.

3.10. Stakeholders' perceptions of communication competence in their organizations

Findings illustrate stakeholders believed that managers and employees working with core operations needed to improve theircommunication skills in order to assume their part of the responsibility for communication:

many people at [organization H] need to work with communication in different ways, so communication needs to be integrated in theoperations to contribute /…/ we need to establish good ways of thinking at many levels, and good routines, methods, and processesenabling many to take their responsibility for communication (Communication executive, organization H)

Findings showed that communication practitioners with formal training in more mature organizations were working to build trustthrough relationship building and driving skills in communications. In these organizations, members of the entire organization havegood communication skills, and managers had communication training, sometimes coached and trained by the organizations’ owncommunication practitioners:

To send a message is one thing, but to get people to understand, the communicative leadership, you need to train that continuously. For usas a HR department to communicate and create effects by our documents, routines, guidelines, finding the right arenas and forums, andpedagogically get the message understood is an art, I think (Key stakeholder, organization A)

Stakeholders mentioned that personal relationships and personal “chemistry” between the communication practitioners and therepresentatives from core operations were central to how they work together. Personal qualities of the communication practitionerswere considered very important; therefore, the ability to build relationships in order to coach others needed to be developed. Therewas an outspoken need from key stakeholders in the study that the communication practitioners needed to improve their skills indigitization.

The communication practitioners with formal education appeared to keep abreast of industry developments and to have goodknowledge of the goals and challenges of the organization.

3.11. Communication practices and assessments

Communication research has a long tradition of studying the role of communication in relation to organizational outcomes suchas organizational climate, relationships between organizations and stakeholders, the constitution of leadership, employee turnoverand sickness rates, identity, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), and organizational change (e.g. Hargie & Tourish, 2009; Lewis,

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

8

2011; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017). Connecting communication to organizational performance requires methodological andpractical knowledge on evaluation and scientific methods (Zerfass, Verčič, & Volk, 2017). In the research literature, such assessmentmethods are well developed (Hargie & Tourish, 2009; Zwijze-Koning & de Jong, 2007, 2014; Zwijze-Koning, De Jong, & Van Vuuren,2015), and in a number of research fields, studies illustrate the relationship between communication and organizational outcomes.

Research illustrates that effective internal communication is a prerequisite for employee engagement and organizational success(Ruck & Welch, 2012) and that organizations need to evaluate and improve internal communication to improve relationships be-tween senior managers and employees (Welch, 2012). However, communication audits in organizations often focus on measuringsatisfaction with the communication process and are management-centric rather than employee-centric (Ruck & Welch, 2012).According to Welch (2013), little scholarly attention has been paid to internal communication education, which results in a vacuumin guidance on the knowledge required for effective internal communication practice.

Research on communicative leadership connects communication between leaders and co-workers to a number of organizationaloutcomes such as employee engagement and organizational performance (Johansson et al., 2014), co-worker health and healthyorganizations (Bäckström, 2009; Bäckström, Ingelsson, & Johansson, 2016), and employee empowerment and voice (Johansson,2015). Leaders’ communication is also of critical importance to strategy implementation (Katsuhiko, 2017).

Researchers studying communication during organizational change perceive communication as a tool for change, as a process inwhich change occurs, and as social transformation (Barrett, 2002;Johansson & Heide, 2008). The social transformation perspective issimilar to the constitutive approach to communication. Leaders’ and co-workers’ communication constitutes change in complex waysas their talk contribute to changing the organization (Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi, 2017). Communication is important to orga-nizational survival during processes of reductions in workforce, which may negatively influence continuing employees (Johnson,Bernhagen, Miller, & Allen, 1996).

Crisis communication research demonstrates the important role of communication to organizational resilience, the ability torecover after crises (Chewning, Lai, & Doerfel, 2013); however, the way practitioners view crises and adapt tactics and techniquesneeds continuous development to keep in line with technological developments and changing conditions in society (Marra, 1998).Using the CCO theory of four flows, Jahn & Johansson explain how adaptive capacity in crisis communication is accomplishedthrough self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning during a wildfire and contributed to enhancing resilience(Jahn & Johansson, 2018).

Research on the practices of evaluation and measurement within strategic communication illustrates that measurements to largeextent are related to communication objectives not organizational objectives (Watson, 2011, 2012). A recent European study foundthat practitioners lack the necessary expertise to conduct reliable evaluation and measurement and concluded that communicationmeasurement practices are still in a nascent stage (Zerfass et al., 2017). The authors believe that robust methodological knowledgeand application in organizations on communication evaluation is a critical factor for success.

3.12. Stakeholders' perceptions of communication practices and assessments

Interviews revealed that organizations lacked a systematic approach to how they should involve communication aspects andcommunication practitioners in different processes. But when communication practitioners took an active part in development andchange processes, the efforts were perceived to be more focused on dialogue and participation, and stakeholders from the coreoperations then experienced great benefit from working with the communication practitioners.

I have my own communication practitioner that I often have a dialogue with, because in the unit that I manage, very big issues can come up.Small things can also happen, and I wonder: ‘is this necessary to communicate’, very often it is good to, how should I say, prevent theproblem, inform before it becomes news on the TV. I often have a dialogue with my communication practitioner: ‘Do you think this is anissue? How can we solve this?’ (Key stakeholder, organization B)

It was also clear that all participating organizations needed to develop their methods for evaluating communication. The studyshowed that in the participating organizations, digital communication was often measured (e.g. visitor statistics on the web site).Internal communication was evaluated to a very small extent, although most organizations used member surveys where commu-nication items were included. However, in most organizations, results from the surveys were not used systematically to developcommunication:

We have facts that we get but do not use, for example the municipality survey to residents, and the internal member survey. They aremeasurement tools that we will use and try to get results from. Then of course we measure media exposure, positive and negative; and ourFacebook posts, what is working, what is not working? Those kinds of measurements, but /…/ we learn most in meetings with managersand others working with communication, by listening to what they need and which challenges they face (Communication executive,organization D)

These findings align with studies that suggest communication practitioners’ uses of communication evaluation and measurementsare undeveloped (Zerfass et al., 2017).

3.13. Qualitative analysis of Communication Maturity in eleven organizations

The final step in our analysis was to explore what communication maturity levels were exposed through key stakeholders’perceptions in the eleven organizations. We employed a dynamic concept of communication maturity, involving four levels of

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

9

communication maturity: immature, emerging, established, and mature. The criteria for evaluating communication maturity levelsare included in Appendix 3. Researchers first applied these criteria individually, and then compared and discussed differences inevaluations.

Findings illustrated that three of the organizations were suggested to have emerging communication maturity, seven organiza-tions were proposed to be on maturity level 3 with established communication maturity, and one organization, organization K, wasconsidered to be on level 4, with mature communication (see Fig. 1).

Distinguishing characteristics for the three organizations on level 2 with emerging communication maturity is that they eitherrecently implemented major organizational changes or established a strategically oriented communication department. Two out ofthree do not have the communication executive as part of the senior management team.

The majority, seven out of the eleven organizations, were considered to be on level 3 with established communication maturity.One possible reason for this result is that the organizations who are willing to participate in a study like this are likely to be ambitiousand therefore potentially relatively mature, but with the insight of development possibilities. However, a closer look at the char-acteristics of these organizations shows quite considerable differences between the organizations. This result suggests that the scopeof level three might be too wide. This was also discussed and confirmed in the workshop with representatives from the organizations.The only organization on level 4 with mature communication has worked systematically with communication for a long time andmade major organizational changes to professionalize the communication department to support and facilitate communication in theentire organization.

Communication understanding was the dimension where stakeholders valued communication most. In almost every organization,stakeholders seemed to have a mature understanding of communication and stated that communication is very important to theorganization. Interview data revealed that stakeholders did not limit communication to transmission of messages, but had a morenuanced understanding of the complexities of communication.

The theoretical area of communication function was the dimension that showed the lowest levels of communication maturity inthe organizations. The reason for this interpretation of the findings was that in several of the organizations, stakeholders perceivedthat responsibility for communication was not clear, and interpreted the mission of the communication department differently, orthere was a discrepancy between how top management and representatives from core operations perceived the mission.

4. Conclusions

This exploratory study introduces the concept of communication maturity and targets the development of a communicationmaturity index for organizations to advance research and practice on the value ascribed to communication in organizations. Thecommunication maturity index proposed here, is a first step towards a CMI indicating degree of progress made by an organization incommunication maturity.

Our first research question asked what theoretical areas or concepts are relevant to analyzing and evaluating organizationalcommunication maturity. The literature review identified six areas with implications for both research and practice that can be usedfor constructing a communication maturity index: communication understanding, communication function, communication orga-nization, communication prerequisites, communication competence, and communication practices and assessment methods. Theseareas were tested by a comparative case study in eleven organizations through interviews with key stakeholders and documentanalyses and in a workshop where representatives of the participating organizations discussed the findings related to the theoreticalareas and maturity levels. We conclude that the six areas were relevant to all types of organizations included in our sample. No newareas or concepts emerged during the interviews. For some of the respondents, questions on budgets, competence, and assessmentmethods for communication were more difficult to relate to, and the dimension of resources was broadened to include

Fig. 1. Evaluating Six dimensions of the Communication Maturity Index (CMI).

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

10

communication prerequisites after the workshop. We conclude that some aspects of communication remained invisible for thesestakeholders, and argue that the ability to answer or relate to these issues also provides insight into the maturity levels of theorganization.

Our second research question asked: how key stakeholders perceive the value of communication in their organizations. This studyshowed that key stakeholders had a less developed understanding of how communication creates value for the whole organizationthan top management, and their perceptions of their own responsibility for communication was not clear.

We conclude that the key stakeholders in the organizations represented in this study need more communicative competence andknowledge about what their own communication responsibility entails or about what the organization expects when it comes tocommunicative responsibility. Also, key stakeholders did not always know how to use communication for organizational develop-ment and change processes, but when they did so, they saw that the communication contributed good value.

Moreover, participating organizations did not appear to have the ability to formulate a clear mission for the communicationprofessionals and the communication department: different stakeholders of the organization expressed different expectations re-garding the communication department. As a result, we conclude that the ways in which an organization prioritizes communication isconsequently dependent on the incumbent CEO and his or her personal view of communication value, which in turn affects thelegitimacy of the communication professionals.

Another conclusion that can be made based on these findings is that in organizations, stakeholders may have a mature under-standing of communication, but they may not have the competence or knowledge that enables them to translate that understandinginto a clear mission for the communication department. Key stakeholders perceived the role of the communication professionals moreto contribute a support and service function whereas top management perceived the value of communication as a more strategicfunction. Findings demonstrated that the closer you are (physically) to a communication professional, the more satisfied you are withcommunication in general, and the communication department in particular. Personal relationships between key stakeholders andcommunication professionals seem to be essential for the perception of communication value as well. These findings are line withprevious research, which concluded that centralization of the communication department led to perceived losses of proximity, re-lationships, and trust in communication practitioners (Grandien & Johansson, 2016).

Our third and final research question asked what levels of communication maturity were exposed through key stakeholders’perceptions. Based on our analyses of interviews and documents in the eleven organizations we proposed maturity levels for eachorganization according to criteria in the six dimensions of the CMI. We found that the organizations that participated in this studydisplay variations in communication maturity, but the variations are not across the whole scale of the proposed maturity index.Possibly, organizations that are willing to participate in this type of study can be expected to already hold insights about the value ofcommunication. Another type of selection of organizations could display a larger variation in maturity. For organizations that displaylower levels of maturity, one reflection is that major disruptive events in organizations may affect key stakeholders’ understandingand expectations of communication. This conclusion is supported by previous research that found practices of strategic commu-nication were adjusted to organizational discourses and organizational settings (Grandien & Johansson, 2016). However, our findingsadd to this perspective since disruptive organizational events were seen to largely affect organizational perceptions and evaluations ofthe communication department and consequently the possibilities to build communicative value. In cases of large turnovers amongkey stakeholders, the understanding of the value of communication in relation to organizational performance can deteriorate, and theorganizational history and “memory” can get lost. The institutionalization of communication is a dynamic process, and thus thecommunication maturity levels of the organizations that participated in this study are subject to change. The organizations thatdisplayed the highest levels of maturity are organizations that over a longer period of time have worked with programs for com-municative leadership.

5. Implications for theory and practice

Embracing a CCO-perspective and studying the constitutive role of communication moves the focus from studying how com-munication is organized and managed to analyze how communication by organizational members shapes organizational processesthat create value (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011; Gregory & Halff, 2017; Van Ruler, 2018). By grounding the study in a CCOperspective, this study extends research on the perceived value of communication (Brønn, 2014; Johansson & Ottestig, 2011; Reber &Berger, 2006; Zerfass & Sherzada, 2015) beyond CEOs, top managers, and communication practitioners to include key commu-nication stakeholders whose understandings and expectations of the value creation of communication are significant to organiza-tional development.

The communication maturity index proposed in this article addresses a degree of progress made by an organization with respectto understandings and expectations of communication and the implementation of communicative practices. We believe commu-nication maturity to be a dynamic concept; that is, the level of maturity is subject to change, which makes the index valuable both forresearch, practice, and organizational development in communication. From a research point of view, a communication maturityindex can be applied in order to find factors that explain differences in understandings and expectations of communication inorganizations. Longitudinal studies can trace the development and changes in communication maturity. From both a practice andresearch perspective, the index can be used to map developments in organizations over time. Further, it can be used to theoreticallycompare the communication maturity between organizations, and it can be used as a practice-based benchmark tool. For organi-zations, the index can also be used to develop internal processes and to justify investments in communication. This will further enablecommunication professionals to explore and develop their role in facilitating communication processes (Gregory & Halff, 2017; Heide& Simonsson, 2011). An organization can measure its communication maturity throughout the organization or in a certain unit or

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

11

department of the organization. The CMI will show what dimensions need to be developed in order to enhance communication in theorganization.

6. Limitations and future research

The CMI that we propose here is a first version and a roadmap towards developing a communication maturity index. This is anexploratory study that points out a direction for future studies where this perspective can be developed. The study relied on aliterature review, interview data, and document analysis in eleven organizations, and the results are obviously limited to the par-ticipating stakeholders and organizations. So far, the study encompasses the first four phases of maturity index development (DeBruin et al., 2005), and thus the next steps of development are to further expand the tests to ensure validity, reliability and gen-eralizability, to deploy the CMI by making it available for use and establishing the generalizability as well as to maintain the use of theCMI to assess the relevance of the index.

In the next step of this project, a quantitative study of managers, co-workers and communication professionals will be conductedin order to further test if these theoretical areas are relevant to all members of an organization and to possibly generalize to otherorganizations.

We acknowledge that future developments of a CMI may find other theoretical areas relevant to include based on a constitutivecommunication perspective, such as for example organizational culture, including how new employees are socialized into the or-ganization, or identification processes and the challenges of sustaining univocal identities in complex and multifaceted environmentscalling for flexibility and differentiated messages (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011).

Another limitation of this study is the qualitative evaluations of the organizations’ communication maturity levels based on keystakeholders’ perceptions. Future studies investigating communication maturity by including a representative sample of organiza-tional members of an organization can possibly draw more accurate conclusions about the organization’s maturity level.

In the future, when the CMI is further developed and tested on a larger scale in more organizations and based on a representativesample of all organizational members, the constitutive role of communication can be further investigated by comparing commu-nication maturity with different key performance indicators (KPIs) of organizations, such as, for example quality or revenue, or toindexes in other fields such as sustainable development, innovation and change, customer satisfaction and employee engagement.

Funding

This work was supported by the Strategic Innovation Fund of the Vice Chancellor of Mid Sweden University in 2016.

Appendix 1 Six theoretical dimensions of the Communication Maturity Index (CMI)

Theoretical dimension Definition of the dimension Literature

Communication under-standing

The understanding among key stakeholders of the communication function and thevalue of communication to the organization.

(Bowen, 2009)(Brønn, 2014)(Dolphin & Fan, 2000)(Goodman, 1998)(Johansson & Ottestig, 2011)(Putnam & Nicotera, 2009)(Reber & Berger, 2006)(Ruck & Welch, 2012)(Welch, 2012)(Zerfass, Linke et al., 2014)(Zerfass & Sherzada, 2015)

Communication function The comprehensive approach to work with internal and external communication,how the communication department’s mission is defined and how the organizationwork with communications strategically, tactically and practically.

(Grandien, 2016)(Grandien & Johansson, 2016)(Grunig, 2006)(Hallahan et al., 2007)(Tench et al., 2009)(Verhoeven et al., 2011)(Zerfass, 2009)

Communication organi-zation

How communication work is organized and how the organization work integratedand specialized with communication issues.

(Grandien & Johansson, 2016)(Verhoeven, 2014)(Werder & Holtzhausen, 2011)

Communication prere-quisites

Organizational prerequisites such as budget and the number of people working incommunications as well as time devoted to communication activities for managersand employees.

(Dozier et al., 2013)(Grunig et al., 2002)(Desmidt & George, 2016)(Hargie & Tourish, 2009)(Johansson et al., 2014)

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

12

Communication compe-tence

General communication skills within the organization, the education of keypersonnel in the communications area and the need for training.

(Barrett, 2006)(Heide & Simonsson, 2011)(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999)(Johansson & Stohl, 2012)(Stoltzfus et al., 2011)(Welch, 2013)(Yeo & Sriramesh, 2009)(Zerfass, Linke et al., 2014)

Communication practicesand assessment met-hods

How the organization uses methods for analyzing, planning, implementing,measuring and evaluating communication activities and communication value inrelation to business or organizational goals and key figures.

Communication during organizational change(Barrett, 2002)Johansson & Heide, 2008)(Johnson et al., 1996))(Lewis, 2011)(Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017)(Sheep et al., 2017)Communicative leadership(Bäckström, 2009)(Bäckström et al., 2016)(Johansson, 2015)(Katsuhiko, 2017)Crisis communication(Chewning et al., 2013))(Marra, 1998))Internal communication(Ruck & Welch, 2012)(Welch, 2012)(Welch, 2013))Evaluation of communication(Hargie & Tourish, 2009)(Watson, 2011)(Watson, 2012)(Zerfass et al., 2017)(Zwijze-Koning & de Jong, 2007) (Zwijze-Koning & de Jong, 2014) (Zwijze-Koning et al.,2015)

Appendix 2 Sample of organizations

Organization Size (no of employees)* Turnover (SEK) * Area of operation Location

A 227 1 billion Business organization RegionalB 3 992 3,6 billion County RegionalC 857 927 million Higher education RegionalD 7 294 6,4 billion Municipality LocalE 262 286 million Government organization NationalF 46 000 91 billion Business organization InternationalG 1 100 5,3 billion Business organization InternationalH 431 2,9 billion Government organization NationalI 79 138 million Government organization NationalJ 158 414 million

(grants excluded)Government organization National

K 99 501 313 billion Business organization International

*The figures are obtained from the annual reports from each individual organization. All figures except organization C are from2015. The figures from organization C are from 2016.

Appendix 3 Maturity levels in the six theoretical areas

Communication understandingStakeholders’ understanding of communication value to the organization, the role of communication in organizing, and the confidence in communicationprofessionals

Immature Emerging Established MatureStakeholders ignore commu-

nication valueSome stakeholders recognize com-munication value

Stakeholders in general recognizecommunication value

All stakeholders recognize communication value

Understanding of communi-cation as transmission ofmessages

Understanding of communication assensemaking

Understanding of communicationas transformational

Understanding of communication as constitutive oforganizing

No confidence in communi-cation professionals

Emerging confidence in communica-tion professionals

Established confidence in commu-nication professionals

High confidence in communication professionals

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

13

Communication functionWays of working with communication, and missions of communication professionals and communication departments

Immature Emerging Established MatureCommunication is not per-

ceived as a general re-sponsibility

Stakeholders have divergent opinionson communication responsibility

Stakeholders have common opi-nions on communication respon-sibility

Communication is perceived as a general responsi-bility

Communication aspects areneglected in all opera-tional decisions and pr-ojects

In some units or situations commu-nication aspects are integrated inimportant decisions or projects

In most units or situations com-munication aspects are integratedin important decisions or projects

Communication aspects are integrated in all opera-tional decisions and projects

Communication depart-ment/ professionals en-act a support and servicefunction

Communication department/ profes-sionalssupport some strategic decisions

Communication department/ pro-fessionalssupport most strategic decisions

Communication department/professionals enact astrategic management function and delivers supportand services.

Communication organizationThe organization of communication practices, communication professionals and communication departments

Immature Emerging Established MatureThe organization of commu-

nication is not sup-porting operational /management needs

The organization of communicationis supporting operational needs

The organization of communica-tion is supporting managementneeds

The organization of communication is adapted to bothoperational and management needs in a good balance

No communication profes-sional participates in a-ny management team

Communication professionals are in-vited ad hoc to management teammeetings

Communication professionals par-ticipate in some managementteams or decisions

Communication professionals participate in manage-ment teams and decisions throughout the organizationat various levels

Communication prerequisitesCommunication prerequisites are situational conditions for communication in different organizations and resources, in terms of budgets, staff for communic-ation

Immature Emerging Established MatureLack of time for communi-

cation, no work with c-ommunicative leader-ship

Restricted time for communication Acknowledges the need for com-munication and devotes time for it

Devote sufficient time to communication, managershave teams of sizes that enable systematic work withcommunicative leadership

No communication budgets Local communication budgets Central communication budgets Both central and local communication budgetsNo external communication

resourcesAd hoc external communication re-sources

External communication resourcesin most units or situations needed

External communication resources when needed

Shortage of staff of commu-nication department orfunction

Staff of communication departmentcover some needs of the organization

Communication department isstaffed to cover most needs of theorganization

Communication department is staffed sufficiently tocover the entire organization’s communication needs

Communication competenceCommunication competence of leaders, managers and employees, as well as communication professionals.

Immature Emerging Established MatureLack of communication co-

mpetenceVarying communication competence Communication competence in

most areas neededCommunication competence in all areas needed

No communication profes-sionals with formal trai-ning in communication

Some communication professionalswith formal training in communica-tion

Most communication professionalshave formal training in communi-cation

All communications professionals have formaltraining in communication.

Communication practices and assessmentsCommunication practices and assessments involve all members and situations in the organization.

Immature Emerging Established MatureCommunication aspects are

neglected in organiza-tional development andchange

Communication is sometimes inte-grated in organizational develop-ment and change

Communication is mostly inte-grated in organizational develop-ment and change

Communication is integrated systematically in orga-nizational development and change

The organization respondsreactively to communi-cations issues

Responses to communications issuesvary between reactive and proactiveresponses across the organization

Responses to communications is-sues are mostly balanced betweenreactive and proactive responses

The organization can handle proactive and reactivecommunications issues in good balance

Communication activities a-re not linked to out-comes in the organiza-tion

Communication activities are insome units or situations linked tooutcomes in the organization

Communication activities aremostly linked to outcomes in theorganization

Communication activities and efforts are linked tooutcomes such as the organization’s results and keyperformance indicators

Communication is not as-sessed.

Communication is assessed in someareas or situations

Communication is assessed inmost areas or situations needed

Communication is assessed with advanced output andimpact measurements, and both qualitative andquantitative methods are used to assess the effects ofinternal and external communication. Internal com-munication is evaluated frequently.

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

14

Appendix 4 Interview guide

Communication understanding

• How would you describe the importance of communication in your organization?

• On what occasions is communication most important (creates most value)?

Communication function

• How would you describe the communication department's mission in your

• organization?

• What are the main tasks of the communications department in your organization based on your perspective?

• How do you think the organization perceives the communication department's main job?

• Have the communication professionals sufficient understanding of the goals and challenges?

Communication organization

• How is the communication department organized in your organization?

• Do you think that this way of organizing works based on your needs?

Communication resources

• Do you think the communications department has a reasonable budget?

• Do you think there are enough people who work with communication?

Communication competence

• Is there a lack of communication skills in general in your organization? What is missing? What do you do too much of/ too littleof?

• Do you think the communications department / communicators have the right skills?

• Are there any areas that you think that you need to develop in terms of communication?

• Communication Executives only: How do you keep up to date on new developments in the communications field?

Communication methods

• How do you measure and evaluate your communication work? Internally and externally.

• Tell us about a new organization or operations development project that your organization has gone through linked to com-munication. Describe how the process worked and when communications came into the picture and when an agent came into theprocess? What went well, what went less well, what would you have done differently?

References

Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic employee communication to facilitate major change. Corporate Communications an International Journal,7(4), 219–231.

Barrett, D. J. (2006). Strong communication skills a must for today’s leaders. Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/10775730610619124.

Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18(2), 76–89.Boivin, G., Brummans, B. H. J. M., & Barker, J. R. (2017). The institutionalization of CCO scholarship: Trends from 2000 to 2015. Management Communication

Quarterly, 31(3), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916687396.Bowen, S. A. (2009). What communication professionals tell us regarding dominant coalition access and gaining membership. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 37(4), 418–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880903233184.Boynton, L. (2002). Professionalism and social responsibility: Foundations of public relations ethics. Annals of the International Communication Association, 26(1),

223–256.Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship

scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170.Brønn, P. S. (2014). How others see us: Leaders’ perceptions of communication and communication managers. Journal of Communication Management, 18(1), 58–79.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-03-2013-0028.Bäckström, I. (2009). On the relationship between sustainable health and quality management: Leadership and organizational behaviors from Swedish organizations. Östersund:

Mid Sweden University.Bäckström, I., Ingelsson, P., & Johansson, C. (2016). How communicative leadership influences co-workers’ health – A Quality Management perspective. International

Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-08-2015-0059.Chewning, L. V., Lai, C.-H., & Doerfel, M. L. (2013). Organizational resilience and using information and communication technologies to rebuild communication

structures. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912465815.Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2011). Corporate and organizational communication in conversation. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 383–414.

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

15

https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910390194.Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue.

Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410836.Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., & Rosemann, M. (2005). Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In B. Campbell, J.

Underwood, & D. Bunker (Eds.). Australasian Conference on information systems (ACIS) November 30 – December 2 2005, Australia, New South Wales, Sydney.Desmidt, S., & George, B. (2016). Do we see eye to eye? The relationship between internal communication and between-group strategic consensus: A case analysis.

Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915609406.Dolphin, R. R., & Fan, Y. (2000). Is corporate communications a strategic function? Management Decision, 38(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/

00251740010317450.Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (2013). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. New York: Routledge.Falkheimer, J., Heide, M., Simonsson, C., et al. (2016). Doing the right things or doing things right? Paradoxes and Swedish communication professionals’ roles and

challenges. Corporate Communications an International Journal, 21(2), 142–159.Goodman, M. B. (1998). Corporate communications for executives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Grandien, C. (2016). Strategic communication found in translation: Practitioners, practices and perceptions. Sundsvall: Mid Sweden University.Grandien, C., & Johansson, C. (2012). Institutionalization of communication management – A theoretical framework. Corporate Communications an International

Journal, 17(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281211220247.Grandien, C., & Johansson, C. (2016). Organizing and disorganizing strategic communication: Discursive institutional change dynamics in two communication

departments. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1196692.Gregory, A., & Halff, G. (2017). Understanding public relations in the ‘sharing economy’. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.

10.008.Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. London:

Routledge.Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication,

1(1), 3–35.Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (Eds.). (2009). Auditing organizational communication: A handbook of research, theory and practice. London: Routledge.Heide, M., Johansson, C., & Simonsson, C. (2012). Kommunikation i organisationer (2nd ed.). Malmö: Liber [Communication in organizations].Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2011). Putting coworkers in the limelight: New challenges for communication professionals. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 5(4), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2011.605777.Huang, Y. H. C. (2012). Gauging an integrated model of public relations value assessment (PRVA): Scale development and cross-cultural studies. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 24(3), 243–265.Invernizzi, E., & Romenti, S. (2009). Institutionalization and evaluation of corporate communication in Italian companies. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 3(2), 116–130.Jahn, J. L. S., & Johansson, C. (2018). The communicative constitution of adaptive capacity during Sweden’s Västmanland wildfire. Corporate Communications an

International Journal, 23(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2017-0031.Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.

791.Johansson, C. (2015). Empowering employees through communicative leadership. In G. Goncalves, I. Somerville, & A. Melo (Eds.). Organizational and strategic

communication research: communication for empowerment (pp. 85–110). Covilha: LabCom.Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: Three communication approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications an

International Journal, 13(3), 288–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280810893661.Johansson, C., Miller, V. D., & Hamrin, S. (2014). Conceptualizing communicative leadership – A framework for analysing and developing leaders’ communication

competence. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 19(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02-2013-0007.Johansson, C., & Ottestig, A. T. (2011). Communication executives in a changing world: Legitimacy beyond organizational borders. Journal of Communication

Management, 15(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541111126364.Johansson, C., & Stohl, C. (2012). Cultural competence and institutional contradictions: The hydropower referendum. Journal of Applied Communication Research,

40(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.720379.Johnson, J. R., Bernhagen, M. J., Miller, V., & Allen, M. (1996). The role of communication in managing reductions in work force. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 24(3), 139–164.Katsuhiko, S. (2017). Senders’ bias: How can top managers’ communication improve or not improve strategy implementation? International Journal of Business

Communication, 54(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675449.Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, C. W. (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal, 31(1), 32–43.Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Macnamara, J. (2014). Emerging international standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations: A critical analysis. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(1), 7–29.Marra, F. J. (1998). Crisis communication plans: Poor predictors of excellent crisis public relations. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/

S0363-8111(99)80111-8.McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1/2),

Retrieved from: http://www.cios.org/ejcpublic/010/1/01017.html.Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Omilion-Hodges, L. M., & Baker, C. R. (2017). Communicating leader-member relationship quality. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 115–145.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687052.Pieczka, M., & L’Étang, J. (2006). Public relations and the question of professionalism. In M. Pieczka, & J. L’Étang (Eds.). Public relations: Critical debates and

contemporary practice (pp. 265–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2015). Revisiting „Organizations as Discursive Constructions“: 10 years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 375–392. https://doi.

org/10.1111/comt.12074.Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization. The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (Eds.). (1983). Communication and organizations. An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Reber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2006). Finding influence: Examining the role of influence in public relations practice. Journal of Communication Management, 10(3),

235–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610681130.Ruck, K., & Welch, M. (2012). Valuing internal communication: Management and employee perspectives. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.016.Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic

comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914527000.Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies,

38(3–4), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640845.Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C., & Seibold, D. R. (2011). Managing organizational change: Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 24(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132749.Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3),

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

16

357–375.Swerling, J., & Sen, C. (2009). The institutionalization of the strategic communication function in the United States. International Journal of Strategic Communication,

3(2), 131–146.Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., & Zerfass, A. (2009). Institutionalizing strategic communication in Europe: An ideal home or a mad house? Evidence from a survey in 37

countries. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2), 147–164.Van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication theory: An underrated pillar on which strategic communication rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4),

367–381.Verhoeven, P. (2014). Communications officers and the C-suite: A study of Financial Times Global 500 companies. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 606–608. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.003.Verhoeven, P., Zerfass, A., & Tench, R. (2011). Strategic orientation of communication professionals in Europe. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(2),

95–117.Watson, T. (2011). An initial investigation on the use of ‘Return on Investment” in public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 314–317. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.06.001.Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.

018.Welch, M. (2012). Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives of internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.017.Welch, M. (2013). Mastering internal communication: Knowledge foundations and postgraduate education. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 615–617. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.04.003.Werder, K. P., & Holtzhausen, D. (2011). Organizational structures and their relationship with communication management practices: A public relations perspective

from the United States. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(2), 118–142.Yeo, S. L., & Sriramesh, K. (2009). Adding value to organizations: An examination of the role of senior public relations practitioners in Singapore. Public Relations

Review, 35(4), 422–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.08.003.Zerfass, A. (2009). Institutionalizing strategic communication: Theoretical analysis and empirical evidence. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2),

69–71.Zerfass, A., Linke, A., & Rottger, U. (2014). The context for leadership in public relations: Key issues in the field. In B. K. Berger, & J. Meng (Eds.). public relations leaders

as sensemakers: A global study of leadership in public relations and communication management (pp. 63–79). New York, NY: Routledge.Zerfass, A., Schwalbach, J., Bentele, G., & Sherzada, M. (2014). Corporate communications from the top and from the center: Comparing experiences and expectations

of CEOs and communicators. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8(2), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2013.879146.Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., & Moreno, A. (2014). European communication monitor 2014: Excellence in strategic communication-key issues, leadership,

gender and mobile media: Results of a survey in 42 countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media.Zerfass, A., & Sherzada, M. (2015). Corporate communications from the CEO’s perspective: How top executives conceptualize and value strategic communication.

Corporate Communications an International Journal, 20(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2014-0020.Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., & Volk, S. C. (2017). Communication evaluation and measurement: Skills, practices and utilization in European organizations. Corporate

Communications an International Journal, 22(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-08-2016-0056.Zwijze-Koning, K., & de Jong, M. (2007). Evaluating the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire as a communication audit tool. Management Communication

Quarterly, 20(3), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906295680.Zwijze-Koning, K. H., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2014). Network analysis as a communication audit instrument. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(1),

36–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914535931.Zwijze-Koning, K. H., De Jong, M. D. T., & Van Vuuren, M. (2015). Evaluating internal public relations using the critical incident technique. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 27(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2014.924840.

C. Johansson, et al. Public Relations Review 45 (2019) 101791

17